Just start with a security domain name as an attribute of every component
and we can go from there.
- Original Message -
From: "David Jencks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 10:52 PM
Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] Thoughts o
Thanks for the info. I agree with you about the confusion...
Do you think if I get the stuff I outlined working we can add the security
aspects after that?
Thanks
david jencks
On 2001.09.21 01:25:58 -0400 Scott M Stark wrote:
> I think part of the confusion on AutoDeployer vs UniversalDeploye
I think part of the confusion on AutoDeployer vs UniversalDeployer is that
the AutoDeployer is a limited UniversalDeployer today. It accepts ears,
jars, wars,
and rars and delgates to specific deployers, so let's isolate dependency
management
to the UniversalDeployer and leave simplify the role of
> Sent: Friday, September 21, 2001 4:20 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] Thoughts on deployers
>
>
> I'm glad you like my examples, I was beginning to worry I was
> the only one
> who thought those were worthwhile scenarios.
>
>
classpath element as well as in the
> dependency info, but I just think it is better. You could even have the
> autodeployer automatically use the classpath element to build the
> dependency
> info, but it is not the only place dependency info can come from.
>
> David
&g
There has to be a common service interface that describes the requirements
of the AutoDeployer or equivalent with respect to its interaction with
services.
Right now this is the DeployerMBean interface. It has a method that
describes
the file patterns each component deployer supports. You could a
y drop
them both into the deployment directory at the same time. I don't know if
this is really any better...
David
> -Original Message-
> From: David Jencks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, September 21, 2001 3:26 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [JBo
d Maplesden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Friday, September 21, 2001 1:46 PM
> > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> > Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] Thoughts on deployers
> >
> >
> > OK, I agree with most of what you propose... with one big
> > di
op my service jar into the deploy directory.
The deployment unit should be a self describing unit.
- Original Message -
From: "David Maplesden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 6:45 PM
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] Thoughts on dep
tomatically use the classpath element to build the dependency
info, but it is not the only place dependency info can come from.
David
> -Original Message-
> From: David Jencks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, September 21, 2001 3:02 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subje
Ok, 2 points:
Well, I'm not too thrilled with the dependency stuff as it currently works
either, but I think something like it is necessary. Here are the things I
want to be able to do, that I think lead to recursive deployment and
dependencies.
a. After I deploy mystuff-service.xml, depending
L PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, September 21, 2001 1:46 PM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] Thoughts on deployers
>
>
> OK, I agree with most of what you propose... with one big
> difference. I now
> feel (after already playing with service deployer)
OK, I agree with most of what you propose... with one big difference. I now
feel (after already playing with service deployer) that dependencies have no
real place in the individual deployers, they just complicate the code for
each of them (or for the proposed universal deployer).
At the end o
13 matches
Mail list logo
